Quick background: my company privately operates public parks, making our money solely from the entry fees voluntarily paid by visitors and campers. We don't get paid a single dollar of tax money.

A major partner of ours is the US Forest Service (USFS), which actually operates more recreation sites than any other agency in the world (the National Park Service has a higher profile and the Corps of Engineers has more visitors, but the USFS is the most ubiquitous). Despite the USFS being an early pioneer of using private companies to reduce the operating costs of parks and campgrounds, the USFS still has a large number of employees opposed to what we do. The most typical statement I hear from USFS employees that summarizes this opposition -- and it is quite common to hear it -- is that "It is wrong to make a profit on public lands."

It would be hard to understate the passion with which certain USFS employees hold to this belief. I discovered, entirely accidentally through a FOIA request my trade group had submitted to the USFS, that a Forest Supervisor in California (a fairly senior person in the USFS management structure) whom I have never met or even had a conversation with circulated emails through the agency about how evil he thought I was.

This general distaste for profit, which is seen as "dirty" in contrast to wages which are relatively "clean" (at least up to some number beyond which they are dirty again), is not limited to the USFS or even to government agencies in general, but permeates much of the public. As a result, I thought I would describe a conversation I had with a USFS manager (actually this is the merger of two conversations). The conversation below had been going on for a while discussing technical topics, and we will pick it up when the District Ranger makes the statement highlighted above (a District Ranger is the lowest level line officer in the USFS, responsible in some cases for the land management functions of an area the size of a county. I have cleaned up the text (I am sure the sentences would not be as well-formed if I had a transcript) but I think this captures the gist of it:

Ranger: I think it's wrong that you make a profit on public lands

Me: So you work for free?

Ranger: Huh?

Me: If you think it's wrong to make money on public lands, I assume you must volunteer, else you too would be making money on public lands

Ranger: No, of course I get paid.

Me: Well, I know what I make for profit in your District, and I have a good guess what your salary probably is, and I can assure you that you make at least twice as much as me on these public lands.

Ranger: But that is totally different.

Me: How?

At this point I need to help the Ranger out. He struggled to put his thoughts on this into words. I will summarize it in the nicest possible way by saying he thought that while his wage was honorable, my profit was dishonorable, or perhaps more accurately, that his wage paid by the government was consistent with the spirit of the public lands whereas my profit was not consistent

Me: I'm not sure why. My profit is similar to your wage in that it is the way I get paid for my effort on this land -- efforts that are generally entirely in harmony with yours as we are both trying to serve visitors and protect the natural resources here. But unlike your wage, my profit is also a return on the investment I have made. Every truck, uniform, and tool we use comes out of my profit, whereas you get all the tools you need paid for by your employer above and beyond your salary. Further, your salary is virtually guaranteed to you, short of some staggering malfeasance. Even if you do a bad job you likely would just get shunted to a less interesting staff position at the same salary, rather than fired. On the other hand if I do a bad job, or if one of my employees slips up, or even if some absolutely random occurrence entirely outside my control occurs (like, say, a flood that closes our operations) my profit can completely evaporate, or even turn into a loss. So like you, I get paid for my efforts here on public lands, but I have to take risk and make investments that aren't required of you. So what about that makes my profit less honorable than your wage?

Ranger: Working on public lands should be a public service, not for profit

Me: Well, I think you are starting to make the argument again that you should be volunteering and not taking a salary. But leaving that aside, why is profit inconsistent with service to the public? My company serves over 2 million visitors a year, and 99.9% give us the highest marks for our service. And for the few that don't, and complain about a bad experience, every one of those complaints comes to my desk and I personally investigate them. Do you do the same?

Why do I make such an effort? Part of it is pride, but part is because I understand that my margins are so narrow, if even 5% of those visitors don't come back next year -- because they had a bad time or they saw a bad review online -- I will make no money. Those 2 million people vote with their feet every year on whether they think I am adequately serving the public, and their votes directly affect how much money I make. Do you have that sort of accountability for your public service?

Postscript: Interestingly, though perhaps not surprisingly, the government ranger did not bring up what I would consider the most hard-hitting challenge: How do we know your profits are not just the rents from a corrupt, cronyist government contracting process. Two things let me sleep well at night on this question. The first is that I know what lobbying I do and political connections I have (zero on both) so I am fully confident I can't be benefiting from cronyism in the competitive bid process for these concession contracts. Of course, you don't know that and if our positions were reversed, I am pretty sure I would be skeptical of you.

So the other fact I have in my favor, which is provable to all, is that the recreation areas we operate are run with far lower costs and a demonstrably higher level of service than the vast majority of recreation areas run by the government itself. So while I can't prove I didn't pull some insider connections to get the work, I can prove the public is far better off with the operation of these parks in private hands.

Many, many emails have encouraged me to disobey the order and keep the parks open for the public. There are three reasons why I have chosen not to do so.

1. Respect for Contract: In my 25 or so lease contracts with the US Forest Service (the USFS insists on calling them "special use permits" but legally they are essentially commercial leases), the contract language gives the Forest Supervisor of each Forest the right to suspend or terminate the contract for virtually any reason. Yeah, I know, this is a crappy lop-sided contract provision, but welcome to the world of working with the Federal government. So each Forest Supervisor has the right to suspend our lease. BUT....

Historically, the USFS has only rarely used this contract power, and its use has generally been in one of two situations: a) an emergency, such as a forest fire, that threatens a particular recreation area or b) a situation where the recreation area cannot physically be used, such as when it has been destroyed by fire or when it is being refurbished. Never, to my knowledge, has the USFS used this power to simultaneously close all concession operations, and in fact in past shutdowns like 1995 and 1996 most all concessionaires stayed open.

Budget considerations alone cannot justify the closure order, as USFS concessionaires do not use Federal funds and in fact pay money to the Treasury. Closing us actually reduces the income to the Treasury as we pay our concession fees as a percentage of revenues. Further, the USFS does not have any day-to-day administration responsibilities for these parks. The only semi-regular duty is sometimes to provide law enforcement backup, but USFS law enforcement officers are still at work (we know this because they showed up to post our operations as closed).

The Administrative Procedure Act makes it illegal for a government agency to make a decision that is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. To this end, the USFS has not actually closed the Forests and still allows camping in the Forests. Thus, the USFS considers it safe for people to be camping in the Forests and that doing so during the shutdown creates no risk of resource or property damage. In contrast, the USFS has made the decision that it is not safe to allow camping in developed campsites run by private concessionaires. The decision that developed campgrounds run by private companies must close, but undeveloped camping can continue, makes no sense and is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. If anything, closing developed areas but allowing dispersed camping increases risks to public safety and for resource damage as developed concession areas are staffed and trained to mitigate such risks (that's the whole point of having developed recreation in the first place).

While we feel good we have a winning argument, this is a complicated point that does not lend itself well to civil disobedience, but we are taking it to court and seeking an injunction to the closure.

2. The wrong people would go to jail. Civil disobedience has a long and honorable history in this country. But the honor of such an act would quickly go out the window if I were to commit an act of defiance but others would have to go to jail. We run over a hundred sites. Telling my people to remain open would simply lead to getting my employees thrown in jail for trusting me and following my instructions. That would be awful. Just as bad, we can see from examples in the National Park Service that such disobedience would potentially subject my customers to legal harassment. It's not brave or honorable for me to be defiant but to have others pay the cost.

3. I could lose everything. I don't want to seem weak-kneed here, but I would be dishonest not to also raise the small but critical point that I have almost every dollar I own tied up in this company, which does over half its business in the National Forest**. My retirement and all my savings are in this one basket. I would likely risk an arrest and a few hours in jail plus the price of bail and months of court appearances to make a point here. I am not ready to go all-in with everything I own, not when there are other legal avenues still available. If that makes me a wimp, so be it.

** you can be assured that the moment I have one minute of extra time we are going to be working on diversifying away from the US Forest Service as much as possible.

We are preparing to go to court to reopen privately-funded parks in the US Forest service that take no Federal money, yet have recently been closed due to budget shortfalls.

Our USFS contracts give the local Forest Supervisor the right to suspend the contract. However, historically, the USFS has only rarely used this contract power, and its use has generally been in one of two situations: a) an emergency, such as a forest fire, that threatens a particular recreation area or b) a situation where the recreation area cannot physically be used, such as when it has been destroyed by fire or when it is being refurbished. Never, to my knowledge, has the USFS used this power to simultaneously close all concession operations, and in fact in past shutdowns like 1995 and 1996 most all concessionaires stayed open.

Budget considerations alone cannot justify the closure order, as USFS concessionaires do not use Federal funds and in fact pay money to the Treasury. Closing us actually reduces the income to the Treasury as we pay our concession fees as a percentage of revenues. Further, the USFS does not have any day-to-day administration responsibilities for these parks. The only semi-regular duty is sometimes to provide law enforcement backup, but USFS law enforcement officers are still at work (we know this because they showed up to post our operations as closed).

The Administrative Procedure Act makes it illegal for a government agency to make a decision that is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. To this end, the USFS has not actually closed the Forests and still allows camping in the Forests. Thus, the USFS considers it safe for people to be camping in the Forests and that doing so during the shutdown creates no risk of resource or property damage. In contrast, the USFS has made the decision that it is not safe to allow camping in developed campsites run by private concessionaires. The decision that developed campgrounds run by private companies must close, but undeveloped camping can continue, makes no sense and is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. If anything, closing developed areas but allowing dispersed camping increases risks to public safety and for resource damage as developed concession areas are staffed and trained to mitigate such risks (that's the whole point of having developed recreation in the first place).